Archive for August, 2008

Don’t Cry For Me Argentina….Save Your Tears For Yourself

August 31, 2008

Essay by Darryl Schoon

While bankers do control the issuance of credit, they cannot control themselves. Bankers are the fatal flaw in their deviously opaque system that has substituted credit for money and debt for savings. The bankers have spread their credit-based system across the world by catering to basic human needs and ambition and greed; and while human needs can be satisfied, ambition and greed cannot-and the bankers’ least of all.

I have a bad feeling about what’s about to happen. The Great Depression is the closest that comes to mind. I, like most, was not alive during the 1930s when it happened. Nonetheless, what once was feared in private is now being discussed in public. It’s going to be bad. It’s going to make high school seem like fun.

The United States of America is the next Argentina

This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises by University of Maryland‘s Carmen Reinhart and Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff makes for perfect reading when flying between the US and Argentina.

There is perhaps no better analysis than Reinhart and Rogoff’s on the history of sovereign defaults; and, as such, Reinhart and Rogoff’s paper was ideal reading material when traveling between the US and Argentina, for the sovereign defaults that happened in the past to Argentina will soon be happening to the US.

But a US default will make Argentina’s debt defaults pale both by comparison and consequence. The US, unlike Argentina, is the world’s largest economy, the issuer of the world’s reserve currency and the world’s largest debtor-and a default by the US on its debt will shake the very foundations of our increasingly fragile global economy.

Soverign Debt Liquidating Ambitions

The power of ambition is extraordinary. The power of ambition transformed the US from the world’s only creditor after WWII into the world’s largest debtor in less than fifty years. Wanting to emulate England’s 19th century empire in the 20th, the US instead has mirrored England decline in the 20th century here in the 21st.

Credit and borrowing fueled America’s ambitions in the 20th century as it had England’s in the 18th and 19th. During the 1980s, to pay for President Reagan expansion of the military, the US quadrupled its national debt in less than a decade by borrowing three trillion dollars during a presidency pledged to balance the budget.

When Reagan took office, US debt totaled one trillion dollars. When Reagan left office, US debt totaled four trillion dollars. Reagan’s vaunted slogan of fiscal conservatism was just that-a slogan; and while talk is cheap, the debts now have to be repaid.

Just as the costs of WWI forced England to abandon the gold standard in the early 1900s, post WWII military spending forced the US to suspend the convertibility of the US dollar to gold in 1971; and the consequences, e.g. burgeoning trade deficits and global currency instability, are now putting unsustainable strains on a financial system already in extremis.

Ambition has its price and the bill is now due and owing. The question is: how will the US pay what it owes? In Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Model, the US is close to “Ponzi status” if not already there since the US is having to roll its debt forward and borrow from others to pay the interest as it can no longer pay down the principle.

In 2006, in an article published by the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Professor Laurence Kotlikoff stated the US was “technically bankrupt” as there was no way the US could pay the $65.9 trillion it owed.

Evidently, Professor Kotlikoff was conservative in his estimate or we’re going downhill faster than he knew. Just three months ago, on May 28, 2008 Richard W. Fisher, President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank estimated the obligations of the US to be actually $99.2 trillion, 50 % higher than Kotlikoff’s figures.

Fisher stated:

In the distance, I see a frightful storm brewing in the form of untethered government debt. I choose the words-“frightful storm”-deliberately to avoid hyperbole. Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the subprime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.

Fisher should know what the US owes and the danger that sum represents. As President and CEO of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, Fisher is a part of the Federal Reserve System-the very system that has indebted America into perpetuity when its credit-based money forced out gold and silver based money in 1913.

But in his speech Fisher said nothing about the role the Federal Reserve has played in America’s fatal dance with debt, warning instead about the increasing costs of entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

Fisher is part of a larger effort to now blame America’s entitlements as the primary cause of our problems, assiduously avoiding the role his own Federal Reserve Bank has played in sinking our once wealthy nation into perpetual indebtedness.

In truth, the entitlement program that poses the greatest threat to America is-and always has been-the Federal Reserve System. Without the Federal Reserve’s credit-based money whose compounding interest (paid to the bankers) is obliged to be paid for by a possibly unconstitutional US income tax [note: the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Income Tax were both instituted the same year in 1913], the US would not be indebted and bankrupt as it is now.

If Ben Bernanke and Richard Fisher et. al. at the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank resigned and stopped plundering the US for their own benefit at the expense of the public in order to line the pockets of their banker friends with public funds, the US might have a chance of successfully getting out of this mess.

But, of course, they won’t and the now privately controlled US government will continue to indebt the American public so insiders can continue to profit immensely at the public trough. But the question still remains, how will the US pay its unpayable debt? The answer is as clear as it is obvious. It won’t because it can’t.

Debt and Destruction South of the Border

In their well-researched paper, Serial Defaults and Its Remedies, Reinhart and Rogoff write “Cycles in capital flows to emerging markets have now been with us for two hundred years”. If we are to understand the dynamics of serial default, it would do us well to look at these cycles and their relevance to what is happening today.

Serial Defaults and Its Remedies, Section 2.
Capital Flow Cycles and the Syndrome of “This Time Is Different”:

..a pattern of borrowing followed by crisis is evident in the string of defaults during 1826-28 in Latin America that come on the heels of the first wave of massive capital flows from Britain into Latin America in 1822-25…A second wave of capital flows from Britain came during the 1850s and 1860s. The cycle ended with the crisis of 1873. The next wave of capital flows into emerging markets coincided with the shift of the financial epicenter of the world from London to New York. Among Latin American countries, the borrowing binge of 1925-28 was [financed] with “cheap” money from New York. Capital flows peaked in 1928, the year before the U.S. Stock market crash ushered in financial and currency crises around the world and eventually an international debt crisis during 1929-33.

Argentina is at the very epicenter of Latin America borrowings and defaults and a cursory judgment may well lay the blame for such on Argentina. But understanding the past is akin to sedimentary sampling and a deeper reading of events reveals far more than the too familiar story of a spendthrift deadbeat nation borrowing more than prudence would otherwise dictate.

The capital flows from England and the US in the last two hundred years to Latin America were flows of credit, not money. The distinction is critical in understanding what has happened during the last two centuries. It explains the basis of the British Empire and current American power. It also explains the exploitation of Argentina.

The British Empire was founded on the central bank invention of credit-based money and the subsequent ability to substitute this new “money” for costly gold and silver; and the issuance of paper money allegedly backed by gold and silver is a critical component in the confidence game of central bankers to pass off their printed coupons as the real thing.

What the private bankers accomplished with the creation of the Bank of England was the government’s “legitimization” of the bankers’ new credit based coupons, sic paper money-coupons upon which the private bankers could now charge interest just as they had when loaning actual gold (what a wonderful scam). The new coupons were a lot easier to come by, especially when the king gave them a monopoly over its issuance.

The advantage to the king was that the king now had an unlimited supply of “money” that could be used to finance his wars-wars which led to the establishment of the British Empire; the cost of which was transferred directly as a burden to the people as the new counterfeit debt-based money was now an obligation of the state, not of the king.

This was the genesis (genius to the bankers and government) of the modern income tax where the people are forced to pay interest on the credit-based money issued by their own government. This was also the beginning of credit-based markets, deceptively called capitalism in order to closely identify the newly counterfeit credit based economy with the real money it had replaced.

Capitalism: the Spread of Debt in Disguise

The flow of credit from England and then from its surrogate successor, the US, to developing nations such as Argentina was but the flow of printed coupons designed to harness and indebt the wealth and productivity of new lands.

The “capital” was really only credit, thinly disguised debt in the form of paper money originally issued by central banks, the Bank of England in Britain and the Federal Reserve Bank in the US, the twin towers of monetary Mordor.

The wonderfully sounding idea of unfettered capitalism is but a smokescreen for bankers to leverage their coupons in the form of credit and thereby indebt and control the productivity and wealth of others. As such, it has accomplished its goal admirably but its success will now cost the bankers dearly.

Three centuries of indebting nations, businesses, and the citizenry with constantly compounding debt is no longer sustainable. This is why central bankers in London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are in such distress. Debtors can no longer pay their debts, defaults are on the rise and bankers may actually have to find real jobs if their confidence game continues to disintegrate.

Bankers’ Fears

Lawrence Summers’ credentials as a banker are impeccable. Educated at MIT and Harvard in economics, Summers has served as Chief Economist for the World Bank, US Secretary of the Treasury and President of Harvard University.

Recently, in March 2008, Summers stated:

..we are facing the most serious combination of macroeconomic and financial stresses that the U.S. has faced in a generation–and possibly, much longer than that…It’s a grave mistake to believe in the self-equilibrating properties of economies in the face of large shocks. Markets balance fear and greed. And when fear takes over, the capacity for self-stabilization is not one that can be relied upon.

On June 29, 2008 the Financial Times quoted Summers:

… we are in an economic environment where we have more to fear than fear itself…

Lawrence Summer’s fears are not to be taken lightly. They are the banker’s equivalent of Jim Cramer’s televised fit of fear when interviewed on CNBC last year.

While Summers is rightfully fearful of the current economic environment, the rest of us have far more to fear from bankers like Lawrence Summers and others like him. Summer’s role in the manipulation of the price of gold is found in his 1988 paper Gibson’s Paradox and the Gold Standard co-authored with Robert Barsky, published in the Journal of Political Economy (vol. 96, June 1988, pp. 528-550).

The hubris of bankers such as Summers is stunning. Fixing the price of gold hoping to control interest rates and prices is like fixing the temperature of thermometers hoping to control global warming. Such is the short reach of Summers’ considerable intellect.

Evil Bankers. Fact or Fiction?

But the real danger of bankers like Lawrence Summers lies not in their untethered intellect but in their cold ambition and selfish greed that sees nations and people as but living fodder to be milked, used and discarded as they and others profit.

In 1991, Summers issued the following memo while serving as Chief Economist at the World Bank:

…developed countries ought to export more pollution to developing countries because these countries would incur the lowest cost from the pollution in terms of lost wages of people made ill or killed by the pollution due to the fact that wages are so low in developing countries…the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

As the World Bank’s Chief Economist, Summer’s memo is a chilling reflection of the heartlessness that lies at the core of bankers and banking establishments. The World Bank itself seems to be a favorite watering hole for those of questionable intent.

Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War was President of the World Bank as was Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War. The current President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is also an ardent supporter of the Iraq War (also on Zoellick’s considerable list of “credits” is his service as advisor to Enron, his membership on the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission and his attendance at the secretive Bilderberg meetings from 1991 to the present and his role as Senior International Advisor to investment bank Goldman Sachs).

It is no coincidence that those heading the World Bank are closely associated with America’s vast war machine. Bankers have profited from fueling the military ambitions of both England and the US for the past two centuries and continue to do so today.

But perhaps the most damning indictment yet of the World Bank and today’s bankers is John Perkins’s Confessions of an Economic Hitman (Barrett Koehler, 2004) in which Perkins reveals the hidden intent of the World Bank and US bankers to cold-bloodedly indebt third world countries such as Argentina and profit by their misery.

In their review of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman write:

Remember Smedley Butler?

He was perhaps the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history. In the early part of this century, he fought and killed for the United States around the world. Butler was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor.

Then, when he returned to the United States he wrote a book titled “War Is A Racket” which opens with the memorable lines: “War is a racket. It always has been.”

“I was a high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. “In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

In a speech in 1933, Butler said the following:

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”

Smedley Butler, meet John Perkins.

Perkins has just written a book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” (Barrett Koehler, 2004). It is the War is A Racket for our times. Some of it is hard to believe. You be the judge.

In 1968, after graduating from Boston University, Perkins joined the Peace Corps and was sent to Ecuador. There, he was recruited by the National Security Agency (NSA) and hired by an international consulting firm, Chas. T. Main in Boston.

Soon after beginning his job in Boston, “I was contacted by a woman named Claudine who became my trainer as an economic hit man.” Perkins assumed the woman worked for the NSA.

“She said she was sent to help me and to train me,” Perkins said. “She is extremely beautiful, sensual, seductive, intelligent. Her job was to convince me to become an economic hit man, holding out these three drugs – sex, drugs and money. And then she wanted to let me know that I was getting into a dirty business. And I shouldn’t go off on my first assignment, which was going to be Indonesia, and start doing this unless I knew that I was going to continue doing it, and once I was in I was in for life.”

Perkins worked for Main from 1970 to 1980. His job was to convince the governments of the third world countries and the banks to make deals where huge loans were given to these countries to develop infrastructure projects. And a condition of the loan was that a large share of the money went back to the big construction companies in the USA – the Bechtels and Halliburtons.

The loans would plunge the countries into debts that would be impossible to pay off.

“The system is set up such that the countries are so deep in debt that they can’t repay their debt,” Perkins said. “When the U.S. government wants favors from them, like votes in the United Nations or troops in Iraq, or in many, many cases, their resources – their oil, their canal, in the case of Panama, we go to them and say – look, you can’t pay off your debts, therefore sell your oil at a very low price to our oil companies. Today, tremendous pressure is being put on Ecuador, for example, to sell off its Amazonian rainforest -– very precious, very fragile places, inhabited by indigenous people whose cultures are being destroyed by the oil companies.”

When a leader of a country refuses to cooperate with economic hit men like Perkins, the jackals from the CIA are called in. Perkins said that both Omar Torrijos of Panama and Jaime Boldos of Ecuador -– both men he worked with – refused to play the game with the U.S. and both were cut down by the CIA -– Torrijos when his airplane blew up, and Roldos when his helicopter exploded, within three months of each other in 1981.

If the CIA jackals don’t do the job, then the U.S. Marines are sent in – Butler’s “racketeers for capitalism.”

Perkins also gives lurid details of how he pimped for a Saudi prince in the 1970s, in an effort to get the Saudi royal family to enter an elaborate deal in which the U.S. would protect the House of Saud. In exchange, the Saudis agreed to stabilize oil prices and use their oil money to purchase Treasury bonds, the interest on which would be used to pay U.S. construction firms like Bechtel to build Saudi cities.

For years, Perkins wanted to stop being an economic hit man and write a tell-all book. He quit Main in 1980, only to be lured back with megabucks as a consultant. He testified in favor of the Seabrook Nuclear power plant (“my most infamous assignment”) in the 1980s, but the experience pushed him out of the business, and he started an alternative energy firm.

When word got out in the 1990s that he was starting to write a tell-all book, he was approached by the president of Stone & Webster, a big engineering firm.

Over seven years, Stone & Webster paid Perkins $500,000 to do nothing.

“At that first meeting, the president of the company mentioned some of the books that I had written about indigenous people and said – that’s nice, that’s fine, keep doing your non-profit work,” Perkins told us. “We approve of that, but you certainly would never write about this industry, would you? And I assured him that I wouldn’t.”

Perkins assumes the money was a bribe to get him not to write the book.

But he has written the book.

You be the judge.

Evil bankers? Fact or Fiction? You be the judge.

Default or Just Deadbeats?

While Reinhart’s and Rogoff’s work on sovereign default is worthwhile and  important, their glaring avoidance of the geopolitical aspect of credit flows from England and the US to Latin America and other developing regions is indicative of the blind eye scholars turn to the activities of those who pay them.

Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard University where Kenneth Rogoff is now employed. It is not likely those who hired the likes of Summers would look kindly upon Rogoff should he begin asking questions whose answers would lead to truths Harvard’s trustees would rather not see the light of day.

So instead of dealing with the critical issues raised by John Perkins, Reinhart and Rogoff consider the phenomena of sovereign defaults as an innocent rite of passage much like high school through which developing economies must pass. Perhaps it is so, perhaps not.

But their “trained” eye wanders a bit, even to an untrained eye such as mine. According to Reinhart and Rogoff, the US is a “default virgin”, sic the US has never missed a debt repayment or rescheduled on at least one occasion. While this is strictly so, the US is nonetheless at the center of the largest default in monetary history.

In the 1970s, the US defaulted on its gold obligations under the Bretton-Woods Agreement. After overspending the greatest hoard of gold in history, 21,775 tons, between 1949 and 1971, the US had 7,000-8,000 tons of gold left and still owed perhaps over 31,000 tons to others.

In 1973, when the US officially refused to convert US dollars held by other countries to gold, it was the biggest monetary default ever. In that one act, as a consequence the entire global monetary system shifted from a gold-based system to a fiat-paper system.

Of the US default on its gold obligations, Professor Antal Fekete wrote in June 2008.

Thirty-five years ago gold, symbol of permanence, was chased out from the Monetary Garden of Eden, replaced by the floating irredeemable dollar as the pillar of the international monetary system. That’s right: a floating pillar. The gold demonetization exercise was a farce. It was designed as a fig leaf to cover up the ugly default of the U.S. government on its gold-redeemable sight obligations to foreigners. The word ‘default’ itself was put under taboo even though it punctured big holes in the balance sheet of every central bank of the world, as its dollar-denominated assets sank in value in terms of anything but the dollar itself. These banks were not even allowed to say ‘ouch’ as they were looking at the damage to their balance sheets caused by the default. They just had to swallow the loss, obediently and dutifully join the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus of sycophants in Washington praising the irredeemable dollar and the Nirvana of synthetic credit.

Debt virgin? Hardly, and whether the US defaulted or not is not just a question of semantics, it is a matter of truth-which, like credit, is now surprisingly hard to come by.

This Time it’s Different

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff’s paper, This Time It’s Different, refers to the idea that sovereign defaults are a thing of the past. That we have somehow fixed what was wrong and it won’t happen again. Reinhart and Rogoff think otherwise.

But this time, in a different way it really is different. This time default will come to both banker and debtor alike. The bankers’ system itself is now collapsing under the weight of debt that the bankers’ debt-based money has produced.

Banks are finding themselves increasingly bankrupt as are the governments the bankers used to debase the world’s currencies. This time, not only will Argentina possibly suffer another sovereign default, so too will its creditor, the US, as will many of the US banks that issued that debt.

The default of the US will remain, however, outside the limited definition of default used by Reinhart and Rogoff. The US will not miss a payment or reschedule its debt. Unlike Argentina, the US prints the currency in which the Argentine and US debt is denominated. The US will print its way out of its debts. Argentina cannot.

Because of the enormity of the US debt, the amount of dollars necessary to print to pay down the debt will lead to the hyperinflation in the US and the destruction of the US dollar. Those who live by the sword sometimes die by the sword-though not often.

In that same article where Professor Kotlikoff estimated US liabilities to be $65.9 trillion, Kotlikoff also wrote:

The United States..appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century.

Maybe this time it isn’t different..

Don‘t Cry For Me Argentina… Save Your Tears For Yourself

In 1976, the Argentine military overthrew the democratically elected Argentine government. The first to recognize the dictatorship was the US. The second was the International Monetary Fund, and within 24 hours of recognizing the soon-to-be most brutal regime in recent history, the IMF arranged a loan to the military junta.

At the time, Argentina’s external debt totaled $7 billion. When the bloody dictatorship ended with the return of democracy six years later, Argentina’s debt totaled $43 billion, a debt owed mainly to US banks.

The common law concept of caveat emptor has particular relevance here, caveat emptor-Latin, “let the buyer beware”, is a legal precept that buyers must take responsibility for the conditions under which the sale was made.

If you loan to a dictatorship, don’t expect to be repaid if a democracy emerges. - Richard Perle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and neoconservative lobbyist

Richard Perle who supported the Iraq War said those words shortly after the US invaded Iraq. While it is doubtful Perle believes the same applies for debts incurred by the US supported dictatorship in Argentina, the truth of Perle’s words extend beyond Perle’s situational principles or a lack thereof. In a court of law, an illegal contract cannot be enforced-unless, of course, the court has been bought off.

A critical distinction between the debt “owed” by Argentina and the debts owed by the US is that Argentina’s debt was illegally imposed upon Argentina by the IMF, the US and international bankers without the consent of the Argentine citizenry, The US debt, however, was incurred with the consent of the American people-or was it?

That, my fellow Americans, is a $99.2 trillion question.

Bankrupt Be the Bonds that Bind

Americans with their outstanding obligations now measured in trillions of dollars of outstanding US bonds have much in common with the Argentine people. We have both been enslaved and bankrupted by the same financial system.

While it is impossible for the debt burdened Argentines to do something about US banks, it is not impossible for Americans to do so. The US Federal Reserve Bank-the largest emitter of debt-based money in the world-while not an official US government agency is nonetheless still subject to the rules and laws of our land.

Stirrings in the Electorate

Dissatisfaction, the beginning of change, is now occurring. The two political polarities are finally awakening to the fact that both have been callously used by those in power. The US has lurched right then left then right again, but it continues to go in the same disturbing direction, a direction now equally distasteful to those on the left and on the right.

In modern democracies, successful politicians must possess two qualities: They must say what the people want to hear and they must do what those in power want done.

It has been easy to manipulate those on the right as well as those on the left. The Republicans and Democrats have done so for years. But where’s the beef? The nation’s finances have been even more badly managed by the Republicans than the Democrats-and Iraq? Sure, vote for the Democrats and stay mired in a conflict they promised they would end.

Both parties are controlled by the same money, the same money that now controls global governments and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the same money that buys politicians, scholars, the military, lawyers, TV anchors, radio talk show hosts and anyone  else whose influence they can use for their own ends.

There is a reason why we are indebted as we are and there is a reason why we are mired in a war that one wants except the few that do, the few that now control our nation and many others. In the midst of this most unreasonable world, there are reasons-whether you want to know them or not.

Humanity now finds itself at the beginning of a profound shift, a shift that will force us-if we are to survive, if we are to triumph-to put aside our differences to accomplish together what we obviously cannot accomplish apart.

The two political polarities must find common ground or they will soon find there is no ground at all. What is happening is bigger than money and power although it involves both. It involves humanity, it involves all of us and unless we find each other we will soon find there will be nothing left to find at all.

We are closer to the end than to the beginning. Keep your own counsel. Buy gold and silver. Keep the faith.

In Argentina, I read in a recent issue of Scientific American that physicists now believe that in the beginning of time the Universe was only one centimeter across. That knowledge heartened me. We have come a long way.


email: info@drschoon.com
website: www.drschoon.com
website: www.survivethecrisis.com

About Darryl Robert Schoon

In college, I majored in political science with a focus on East Asia (B.A. University of California at Davis, 1966). My in-depth study of economics did not occur until much later.In the 1990s, I became curious about the Great Depression and in the course of my study, I realized that most of my preconceptions about money and the economy were just that – preconceptions. I, like most others, did not really understand the nature of money and the economy. Now, I have some insights and answers about these critical matters.In October 2005, Marshall Thurber, a close friend from law school convened The Positive Deviant Network (the PDN), a group of individuals whom Marshall believed to be “out-of-the-box” thinkers and I was asked to join. The PDN became a major catalyst in my writings on economic issues.When I discovered others in the PDN shared my concerns about the US economy, I began writing down my thoughts. In March 2007 I presented my findings to the Positive Deviant Network in the form of an in-depth 148-page analysis, “How to Survive the Crisis and Prosper In The Process.“The reception to my presentation, though controversial, generated a significant amount of interest; and in May 2007, “How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process” was made available at www.survivethecrisis.com and I began writing articles on economic issues.

The interest in the book and my writings has been gratifying. During its first two months, http://www.survivethecrisis.com was accessed by over 10,000 viewers from 93 countries. Clearly, we had struck a chord and www.drschoon.com, has been created to address this interest.

 

Lies that are told, Dummies that listen…..

August 24, 2008

Dear Readers,

This country is in a red-level crisis of lies and deception, the enormity of which threatens to transform our country into something unrecognizable.  We are being force-fed massive amounts of propaganda and outright fraud in nearly *every* aspect of our lives: politically, economically, socially, medically and even spiritually.

The reason we created this blog was to try and expose the frauds foisted upon us and to share knowledge to counteract, as best we can,  the deceptions we are expected to endure.  It is a Herculean task, and we are but one tiny voice.   Going against the main-stream media and it’s slick networks like CNN & Fox, etc. Is akin to trying to drain the ocean with a teaspoon; but the alternative – to know the truth and to say nothing, is morally repugnant to us.

Let’s just take a quick look at some of the ongoing whoppers we are being told:

Government Scientist’s for NIST discover a “New Phenomenon” that explains why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed:

Pretty amazing is it not?  Just when you think that science understands that whole “Newtonian Physics” thing, they discover that the swift, perfectly symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7 was caused “mainly due to fire.”  Ahhh….. Dr. Shyam Sunder of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) your federal pension is assured!  Why you will probably even get a raise! I am sure the money will assuage any guilt you might feel for abandoning all pretense of objective scientific investigation.

Lets consider a slightly different explanation for WTC7 shall we?

Maybe we should ask a man who actually runs a controlled Demolitions company what he thinks? (And this is completely unbiased, because he is NOT a US Citizen and he isn’t told at first that he is watching one of the World Trade Center buildings!):

Here are some other people from the demolitions industry that question the “official” explanation:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

How about something less dramatic than the lies of false-flag terrorist attacks and collapsing buildings?  How about the lies told about a mundane substance we use every day?  Observe how devious this little gem of propaganda is!  The “lie” here is in what they don’t say!  So clever and so wicked:

Study: Organic food not more nutritional

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/19/organic.cooking.pv/index.html

Wow…..a study shows organic foods do not have more NUTRIENTS than non-organic foods!     Well DUH!!
.
You don’t buy organic food because it is “more” nutritious, you buy it because it is not laden full of pesticides and herbicides!!
.
The article does admit in one brief paragraph that the “study” made no evaluation on the merits of eating organic food versus food grown “conventionally” (i.e. with pesticides and herbicides).  So apparently we will never know if eating your veggies dripping full of “Round-Up” and “Weed-be-Gone” is better or worse for you than veggies grown without.  Yep, that will just have to remain one of life’s unanswered questions.

In other news…..mercury is GOOD for you!

.
Bwahh ha ha ha ha ha….First the Govt said they took the mercury OUT of the vaccines. Now that a few people have caught on that it is still in the vaccines…they say it is GOOD FOR YOU!  It helps children’s brains perform better!
.
You can’t make this stuff up folks!
.
Mercury is one of the most toxic elements known to man.  It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs.  Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants.  Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences.
.
Here is a video of baby Paul.  His mother might disagree with the premise that “vaccines with mercury “help – not hurt” children!
.
.
The people and institutions that have implemented water fluoridation, mass vaccination programs, genetically modified foods, etc. are eugenicists.  They are not happy with their vast wealth and power.  They want to DUMB-DOWN and poison the general population and they are astonishingly successful.  Read Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and there you will see the kind of nightmare world envisioned for humanity by the Elites.  When George Bush Sr. would give speeches referencing a “New World Order…coming into view” he was NOT making some vague philosophical reference, he was describing what (to the Elite) is a very real and tangible goal that they have been working on for generations; i.e One World Government, Total Police State Control, and the elimination of all the “useless eaters” from the planet.  (THEY decide who the useless eaters are of course!)
.
The Elite at the top of the “pyramid” are also heavily inbred, deeply into the occult, and take pleasure in the suffering and evil they foist on the world.  They are Luciferian.
.
One of the key organizations, considered the “Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations”  was originally called the “Lucifer Publishing Company”. However, the name “Lucis Trust” has been used from 1925. According to a statement on their website, the name “Lucifer” was used because, the founders considered Lucifer, the fallen angel, a positive principle; as did, also, Helena Blavatsky.
.
Check out this provocative and insightful article on the “Lucis Trust”
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/lucistrust.html
.
We could give you thousands of additional examples….but in the interest of brevity, we will simply encourage you to *think* and *question* everything you think you know.   Don’t be a dummy; don’t let them play you!
.
This sums it up nicely!
.

Things that make you go “Hmmmm” Part Deux

August 21, 2008


CLICK HERE TO SEE FULL SIZED FRAME

Insiders love bragging to one another about being on the inside– perhaps that’s one explanation for an abundance of illuminati symbolism in mainstream media and corporate logos.

Among the interesting references to 9/11 that have been uncovered in media released before 9/11 is a passport for ‘Neo’ in blockbuster film The Matrix, released in 1999.

The passport– in Neo’s file– shows an expiration date of ’11 SEP 01,’ seemingly now an eerie coincidence found in the smallest of details.

Further, the 10-year passport shows an issue date of ’12 SEP 91′– only one day after George H.W. Bush’s haunting September 11, 1991 speech before Congress where he called for, in no uncertain terms, a New World Order (and before that on Sept. 11, 1990) . Indeed, September 11 proves to be an important occultic date/number to the elites.

Coincidence or not, the Wachowski brothers, the film’s directors, have proven to be obviously knowledgeable about a number of esoteric meanings– not only do both The Matrix trilogy and V for Vendetta contain plotlines laden with occult symbolism, but its imagery is also textured throughout these films.

Such pre-9/11 coincidences are prevalent elsewhere in the media as well. For instance, a 1997 episode of the Simpsons shows Lisa holding an ad for a $9 bus trip to New York with the towers interestingly juxtaposed next to the 9, portraying the image of 9/11.

The pilot episode for ‘The Lone Gunmen‘ (an X-Files spin off) featured an extremely eerie plot where a government faction posing as terrorists hijack a 727 by remote control and attempt to fly it into the World Trade Center– the episode aired on March 4, 2001– some 6 months before the 9/11 attacks.

From the pilot for “The Lone Gunmen” – Original airdate March 4, 2001

The series’ star, Dean Haglund, has previously appeared on the Alex Jones Show to discuss the odd coincidence.

“Part of the plot, as it said in the script was that this event would be used to start an international war on terror.” Haglund commented.

Interestingly, Haglund also revealed that representatives of the FBI and NASA would frequently approach X-Files series creator Chris Carter with plots for stories and noted also that CIA and other government officials frequented Hollywood parties to plant script ideas.

It is well-known that the Pentagon has a heavy influence in most big budget military films– trading access to bases, planes and other equipment for heavily influence and control of the message in scripts– and it is clear that such government forces meddle in other areas of media as well.

Did Tom Clancy’s “lucky assertions” foretell the Georgian/Russian conflict and the SPP?

Did  Tom  Clancy’s  “lucky assertions”  foretell in  2001 the Georgia Conflict of 2008 and  foretell in   2004   “The  Security   and   Prosperity  Partnership   of  North   America   (SPP)  of    2005?” We will analyze Clancy’s seemingly “clairvoyant” references about the ongoing conflict in Georgia which include the following “lucky assertions:”

  1. Civil unrest in Russia in August 2008- Lucky guess?
  2. U.S. clandestine support of rebel factions in Georgia- Lucky guess?
  3. Specifically cites South Ossetia War in 2008- Lucky guess?
  4. The U.S. clandestine forces “Ghosts” are deployed in Ossetia to silence the rebellion – Lucky guess?
  5. U.S. Ghosts battle South Ossetian rebel forces from the north of Georgia.
  6. Russian government eventually sends in their army to aid the South Ossetian rebels – Lucky guess?

The above events have come to fruition with precision as “foretold” by Tom Clancy. Was each of the above just mere coincidences or a compilation of foreknowledge by Tom Clancy? You can see the “The Ghost Recon Intro” trailer Here:

There may in fact be more events which have yet to take place as this conflict in Georgia continues to unfold and how it may come to an end before more items of foreknowledge by Tom Clancy may be added to list above.  But there is more….

In addition to Clancy’s foreknowledge the conflict between Georgia and Russia as revealed in his 2001 “Ghost Recon” video game, Clancy was seemingly “clairvoyant” again in a subsequent video game release of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (GRAW). This video game, “GRAW,” was originally to be released in 2004, but it was delayed for undisclosed reasons with a new target release in 2005 according to Ubisoft’s 2005 fiscal year publication listing “GRAW” on their release list for Xbox, PS2, PC, Xbox 360 and scratched entirely for Gamecube http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/615/615158p1.html. In short, the development of this game took place in 2004 or prior with its release dates delayed two different times once in 2004 and again in 2005. Clancy’s plot in this video game, “GRAW,” commences Mexico City in 2014 as a U.S. spy plane carrying a device which disrupts wireless communications called “Guardrail IX” is shot down over Nicaragua. U.S. Intelligence discovers a plot to transfer the device to rebels in Mexico City, and the Ghosts, U.S. clandestine units, are sent in to retrieve it. However, the mission is aborted when a coup d’état takes place in Mexico City and the Ghosts are ordered to Mexico City immediately, where a summit involving the leaders of the United States: President Ballantine, Canada: Canadian Prime Minister (unnamed), and Mexico: President Ruiz-Peña sign the North American Joint Security Agreement (NAJSA) described in the video trailer as a “historic new policy designed to share the policing responsibilities along the borders of these three countries and hopefully curtail the illegal immigration and movement of drugs weapons and terrorists in the hemisphere as part of this historic agreement.” Trailer can be seen here:

This supposed fictional agreement, North American Joint Security Agreement (NAJSA) sounds cynically close to the non-fictional agreement “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).”

Ironically or not, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP),” which was predicated upon the writings of CFR members including Robert Pastor entitled “Creating a North American Community,” was agreed upon on March 23, 2005 by the heads of government, Mexico’s Vincente Fox, U.S.’s George W. Bush, and Canada’s Paul Martin launching the North American partnership (AKA: North American Union) at a meeting in Waco, Texas. Presumably, no one other than insiders had knowledge of the this agreement requiring Judicial Watch, a conservative public-interest law firm, to go through the Freedom of Information Act in Sep 26, 2006 to obtain the SPP documents (http://www.judicialwatch.org/5979.shtml).

So, once again Tom Clancy got lucky in mirroring “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)” during the developmental stages of this video game, “GRAW” in 2004 or earlier and months or may be an year prior to the actual consummation of the SPP agreement on March 23, 2005 Mexico’s Vincente Fox, U.S.’s George W. Bush, and Canada’s Paul Martin? Virtually two years or more before Judicial Watch obtained the documents in Sep 26, 2006?

What odds would actuaries calculate on Tom Clancy “lucky assertions” in “Ghost Recon” 2001 video game about 1) the current conflict in Georgia seven (7) years prior to the actual event and 2) the mirroring of “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)” with his supposed fictional agreement, North American Joint Security Agreement (NAJSA) close to one (1) year before the agreement took place and 3) two years or more before Judicial Watch obtained the documents in Sep 26, 2006?

Tom Clancy’s wife second wife Alexandra Marie Llewellyn (26 July 1999 – present) is the niece of Colin Powell; as of 2001, Tom Clancy reportedly worth over USD $190 million http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002007/bio.

 

Crisis in the Caucasus. What were they smoking in the White House?

August 20, 2008

Commentary by: Eric Margolis

The Bush administration appears to have pulled off its latest military fiasco in the Caucasus. What was supposed to have been a swift and painless takeover of rebellious South Ossetia by America’s favorite new ally, Georgia, has turned into a disaster that left Georgia battered, Russia enraged, and NATO badly demoralized. Not bad for two days work.

Equally important, Russia’s Vladimir Putin swiftly and decisively checkmated the Bush administration’s clumsy attempt last week to expand US influence into the Caucasus, and made the Americans and their Georgian satraps look like fools.

We are not facing a return to the Cold War – yet. But the current US-Russian crisis over Georgia, a tiny nation of only 4.6 million, and its linkage to a US anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, is deeply worrying and increasingly dangerous.

On 7 August, Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, ordered his US and Israeli-advised and equipped army to invade the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which has been struggling for independence from Georgia since 1992. Most of its people were Russian citizens who wanted union with Russian North Ossetia.

If not directly behind Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, Washington had to have been at least fully aware of Saakashvili’s plans. The Georgian Army was trained and equipped by US and Israeli military advisors stationed with its troops down to battalion level. CIA and Israel’s Mossad operated important intelligence stations in Tbilisi and coordinated plans with the Saakashvili, whose political opponents have long accused him of being very close to CIA and the Pentagon.

Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia was launched while the world was absorbed by the Beijing Olympics, and Prime Minister Putin was in the Chinese capital. The attack was clearly planned to be a lightening strike that would occupy all of South Ossetia and then Abkhazia before Moscow could react, presenting the Kremlin with a fait accompli.

Who in Bush’s or Cheney’s office approved this stupid adventure? Why did the very smart Israelis get sucked into this imbroglio?

Saakashvili’s stealth “coup de main” quickly turned into a disaster. Russia’s 58th Army responded by routing Georgian forces and delivering a humiliating strategic and psychological blow to the Bush administration. Saakashvili fell right into Moscow’s trap.

Georgia and Russia have been feuding since 1992 over two Georgian ethnic enclaves, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, whose people differ in ethnicity and language from Georgians and who wanted to rejoin Russia.

The young, US-educated Saakashvili became Georgia’s president in 2003 after an uprising, believed organized by CIA and financed by US money, overthrew the former leader, Eduard Shevardnadze. I came to know and respect Shevardnadze in Moscow when he was Mikhail Gorbachev’s principal ally and architect of Soviet reform.

Had the able, clever Shevardnadze still been in power, this misadventure would never have happened.

Saakashvili quickly became the golden boy of US rightwing neoconservatives and their Israeli allies, who held him a model of how to turn former Russian-dominated states into “democratic” US allies. Georgian critics claim Saakashvili kept power by intimidation, bribery, and vote rigging. The youthful Georgian leader, his head swelled by promises of US support and NATO membership, launched a war of words against Moscow.

Amazingly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a supposed Russian expert, even publicly assured Saakashvili that the US would “fight” for Georgia. Washington’s latest fiasco falls squarely into her lap.

US money, military trainers, advisers, and intelligence agents poured into the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. Israeli arms dealers, businessmen and intelligence agents quickly followed, reportedly selling some $200 million or more of military equipment to the Georgian government.

By expanding its influence into Georgia, the Bush administration brazenly flouted agreements with Moscow made by president George H.W. Bush not to expand NATO into the former USSR. President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both violated this pact. Under the feeble Yeltsin regime, bankrupt Russia could do nothing. But under Putin, newly wealthy Russia finally pushed back after a long series of provocations fromWashington.

Russia’s tough deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, sneeringly observed that Georgia had become a “US satellite.” He was absolutely right. And Ivanov, a former KGB colleague of Vlad Putin, knows a satellite when he sees one. Georgia provided the US oil and gas pipeline routes from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan that bypassed Russian territory. Russia was furious its Caspian Basin energy export monopoly had been broken, vowing revenge.

Now that the Russians have checkmated the US and client Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia will likely move into Russia’s orbit. The west rightly backed independence of Kosovo from Serbia. The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are ethnically and linguistically different from Georgians, should have as much right to secede from Georgia.

Besides thwarting Bush’s clumsy attempt to further advance US influence into Russia’s Caucasian underbelly, Putin delivered a stark warning to Ukraine and the Central Asian states: don’t get too close to Washington. Putin put the US on the strategic defensive and showed that NATO’s new eastern reaches – the Baltic, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Caucasus – are largely indefensible.

It’s a good thing Georgia was not admitted to NATO, as the White House had reportedly promised Saakashvili. Had Georgia been admitted before this crisis, the US and its NATO allies would have been in a state of war with Russia. Disturbingly, Germany’s conservative prime minister, Angelika Merkel, rushed to Tbilisi to assure Saakashvili that her nation still backed NATO membership for Georgia.

Is the west really ready to be dragged into a potential nuclear war for the sake of South Ossetia? Are American and German troops ready to fight in the Caucasus? Georgia is a bridge too far for NATO.

President George Bush, VP Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain all resorted to table pounding and Cold War rhetoric against Russia. McCain, whose senior foreign policy advisor is a neoconservative and was a registered lobbyist for Georgia, demanded that the US and NATO “punish” Russia and put it into diplomatic isolation.

Unfortunately, the indignant John McCain’s could not even properly pronounce “Abkhazia.”

America’s neocon amen chorus demanded a confrontation with Russia, chanting their usual mantras about Munich, appeasement and the myths of World War II. One certainly wondered if the Caucasian fracas was not staged by the Republicans to provide Sen. McCain with the “three a.m. phone call” he has been longing for and a chance to sound tough. This he did, even though his rhetoric was empty and his solutions vapid. Barack Obama ducked the issue or issued a few tepid bromides about halting “Russian aggression.”

Meanwhile, hypocrisy flew thicker than shellfire. Bush, who ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, and is threatening war against Iran, accused Russia of “bullying” and “aggression.” Putin, who crushed the life out of Chechnya’s independence movement, piously claimed his army was saving Ossetians from Georgian ethnic cleansing and protecting their quest for independence.

Bush and McCain demand Russia be punished and isolated. The humiliated Bush is sending some US troops to Georgia to deliver “humanitarian” aid. Equally worrisome, the US rushed to sign a pact with Warsaw to station anti-missile missiles and anti-aircraft batteries, manned by US troops, in Poland. This response is dangerous, highly provocative, and immature. The next president will have to deal with the Bush administrations reckless and foolish acts in the Mideast, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and now, the Caucasus

The west must accept Russia has vital national interests in the Caucasus and the former USSR. Russia is a great power and must be afforded respect. The days of treating Russia like a banana republic are over. Have we learned nothing from World War I or II, both of which began with flare-ups in obscure Sarajevo and the Danzig Corridor?

The US’s most important foreign policy concern is keeping correct relations with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at North America. Georgia is a petty sideshow. US missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic are a dangerous, unnecessary provocation that is sowing dragon’s teeth for future confrontation.

FoundingFather1776 comments: It is interesting to note that the Georgian Defense Minister Temur Yakobshvili is Jewish and recently praised the IDF for its role in training Georgian troops.  See this article in Israel’s online newspaper: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html

We have to ask…what reckless madness infects Israel & the Neo-Cons to want to “poke the bear” in such a blatant way?  To what end does it serve?  We have no love for Vladimir Putin and his corrupt regime, but for Georgia to launch a sneak attack, violating previous peace agreements and slaughtering ethnic Russians with the tacit encouragement of Israel and the US leaves us ill at ease.

We believe this action is characteristic of the Illuminati’s favorite “modus operandi” which is “Ordo Ab Chao” or order out of chaos.  Backing conflicts and wars is a very effective way to ensure a source of power and profits!

Anthrax Attacks – We smell a rat!

August 9, 2008

Dear Readers,

Although we *should* breathe a collective sigh of relief that the notorious “Anthrax Terrorist” has finally been identified (forcing him to commit suicide of course); somehow a teensy bit of angst still remains.

So many questions…..so few answers (or, at least, so few plausible answers!)

Here is a brief review:

The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two Democratic U.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. The primary suspect was not publicly identified until 2008.

In mid-2008, the FBI narrowed its focus to Bruce Edwards Ivins, a scientist who worked at the government’s biodefense labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Ivins had been told about the impending prosecution and apparently committed suicide by overdosing on Tylenol with codeine as reported on August 1, 2008.[1][2]

On August 6, 2008, federal prosecutors declared Ivins to be the sole culprit of the crime.[3] Two days later, Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Rush Holt called for hearings into the DOJ and FBI’s handling of the investigation[4]

Now – here are a few questions that remain unanswered:

1) Why did Whitehouse personnel start taking the anti-anthrax drug “Cipro” on Sept. 11th, a full week          before any of the Anthrax letters were discovered? See: http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

2) Why did the FBI imply the Anthrax attacks were probably related to the Sept. 11 “Terrorist” attacks involving Al-Queda & Iraq, when it quickly became clear that this Anthrax was an EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED WEAPONIZED type, that came from US Army strains:

Anthrax attack bug “identical” to army strain report

On May 9, 2002, New Scientist published an article that reported:

‘The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory. The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared. The two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland. The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker’s anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.’ [46

See also: http://www.infowars.com/?p=3725

3) Why did the FBI focus almost all there attention on Dr. Steven Hatfill, when the case against him was so weak that the Govt. ended up paying him a 5.8 million dollar settlement?

The Justice Department has named no suspects in the anthrax case. Although Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Dr. Steven Hatfill a “person of interest” in a press conference, no charges were brought against him. Hatfill, a virologist, vehemently denied he had anything to do with the anthrax (bacteria) mailings and sued the FBI, the Justice Department, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and others for violating his constitutional rights and for violating the Privacy Act. On June 27, 2008, the Department of Justice announced it would settle Hatfill’s case for $5.8 million. [47]

4) Why is the case all neatly “solved” when there is significant doubt that the “target” Bruce Ivins was capable of the crime?

On August 1, 2008 the Associated Press reported that Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who worked for the past 18 years at the government’s biodefense labs at Fort Detrick, had committed suicide. Ivins was a top U.S. biodefense researcher who worked at Ft. Detrick. It was widely reported the FBI was about to lay charges on him, however the evidence is largely circumstantial and the grand jury in Washington reported it was not ready to issue an indictment.[54][55] [56] Rep. Rush Holt, who represents the district where the anthrax letters were mailed, said circumstantial evidence was not enough and asked FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to appear before Congress to provide an account of the investigation.[57] Ivins’s death leaves unanswered two puzzles. Scientists familiar with germ warfare said there was no evidence that Dr. Ivins had the skills to turn anthrax into an inhalable powder. According to Dr. Alan Zelicoff who aided the F.B.I. investigation “I don’t think a vaccine specialist could do it…This is aerosol physics, not biology“. The other problem is the lack of a motive.[58]

Dr. W. Russell Byrne, a colleague who worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility, said Ivins was “hounded” by FBI agents who raided his home twice, and he was hospitalized for depression earlier this month. According to Byrne and local police, Ivins was removed from his workplace out of fears that he might harm himself or others. “I think he was just psychologically exhausted by the whole process,” Byrne said. “There are people who you just know are ticking bombs,” Byrne said. “He was not one of them.”[59]

On August 6, 2008, federal prosecutors declared Ivins to be the sole culprit of the crime when Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia laid out the case against Ivins to the public. The main evidence is already in dispute. Taylor stated “The genetically unique parent material of the anthrax spores … was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins.” But other experts disagree, including biological warfare and anthrax expert, Dr. Meryl Nass, who stated: “Let me reiterate: No matter how good the microbial forensics may be, they can only, at best, link the anthrax to a particular strain and lab. They cannot link it to any individual.” At least 10 scientists had regular access to the laboratory and its anthrax stock, and possibly quite a few more, counting visitors from other institutions, and workers at laboratories in Ohio and New Mexico that had received anthrax samples from the flask.[4]

Doubts about FBI conclusions

In the days following the FBI’s statement that the bureau was confident that biodefense researcher Bruce E. Ivins acted alone doubts as to the conclusions were being raised by people with a broad range of political views and colleagues of Ivins. [60] Among evidence cited was that the FBI unable to find any anthrax spores at Ivins’ house or on his other belongings nor place him in the New Jersey mailbox where the anthrax was mailed from, [61] that he was one of 100 people who could have worked with the vial used in the attacks.[60] Richard Spertzel a former bio weapons inspector in Iraq wrote that the Anthrax used could not have come from the lab Ivins worked at.[62

5) Why the hell is the FBI not questioning Dr. Phillip Zack, WHO WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE MAKING AN UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY INTO THE ANTHRAX STORAGE AREA! Please read the full article here:

http://www.waketheflockup.com/WRHARTICLES/anthraxsuspect.html?q=anthraxsuspect.html

Dear Readers, doesn’t this all seem very very strange to you?

Do you think it is *possible* that our loving Government is lying to us?  Hhmmm???  I know, it is simply CRAZY to think that right?  I mean, they have never lied to us about terrorism before have they? Bwahhaha hah hah hah hah hahahah………..


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers